No, you do not understand.Making a bridge between other two bridges is the same like moving all the ports from those two bridges to the third one and removing the other two.
You can assign as many IP addresses to any single interface as you wish.Each bridge has a unique MAC-address! And we can assign an IP address to the bridge!
Now do you understand?
omg. you really do not see the difference between the two interfaces with the unique ip addresses, and one interface with two ip addresses?You can assign as many IP addresses to any single interface as you wish.Each bridge has a unique MAC-address! And we can assign an IP address to the bridge!
Now do you understand?
As long as these two interfaces are in the same broadcast domain (i.e. bridged together)- no, I don't see much difference.you really do not see the difference between the two interfaces with the unique ip addresses, and one interface with two ip addresses?
Can you provide any real-life example where this is necessary, please? Highly curious.the possibility to have multiple mac addresses on whatever interface and the ability to run multiple dhcp clients on the interface with mac address as distinguisher
If you "hyper"-bridge the bridges you have only one admin mac.No, you do not understand.Making a bridge between other two bridges is the same like moving all the ports from those two bridges to the third one and removing the other two.
Each bridge has a unique MAC-address! And we can assign an IP address to the bridge!
Now do you understand?
I have the same issue with UnityMedia, providing me with internet via cable (5 fixed IP addresses). They do not give you a /28, but rather assign the IPs via DHCP to specified MAC Addresses.Just chiming in with support for this feature. My ISP assigns IPs via DHCP and requires a different MAC address for each reservation.
I've jimmied something up with a virtual router Bridge NATing to rewrite MAC addresses, etc. but it's horrible.
The ability to add virtual interfaces with a unique MAC addresses, which could I could then attach a DHCP clients to would allow me to do this cleanly.
Is there any proper protocol for submitting feature requests? Or literally just email support[at]mikrotik.com?This is a brilliant feature request.
Make sure to email it through to support.
I have had the most success with feature requests by emailing support@mikrotik.comIs there any proper protocol for submitting feature requests? Or literally just email support[at]mikrotik.com?
There is no logical difference between bridging two bridges together / moving the ports off of bridge2 and connecting them to bridge1 instead.im in for this orginal post. There is no way to easy make bridge bridged together.
In this situation, you would create one bridge for each "vlan"you have an innlink with managment traffic tagged as vlan 100 - and lets say a dhcp or pppoe untagged in ether1 port.
There is no logical difference between bridging two bridges together / moving the ports off of bridge2 and connecting them to bridge1 instead.im in for this orginal post. There is no way to easy make bridge bridged together.
There is a performance penalty for bridging the bridges together, as each packet must be processed three times to get through the gauntlet of bridges if it enters on a bridge1 port, crosses "main bridge" and then exits on a bridge2 port. Basically, you get the same functionality and much worse performance by bridging bridges together.
In this situation, you would create one bridge for each "vlan"you have an innlink with managment traffic tagged as vlan 100 - and lets say a dhcp or pppoe untagged in ether1 port.
So if in cisco you issue the command: vlan 100, then in Mikrotik: /interface bridge add name=br-v100
Then connect any "access ports" directly to the bridge: /interface bridge port add bridge=br-v100 interface=ether2
To tag on a particular interface, add a vlan subinterface: /interface vlan add name=e1-v100 vlan-id=100 interface=ether1
Then connect the vlan interface to the br-v100 bridge.
Voila! tagged vlan100 on ether1 -> untagged on ether2
The most logical solution would be to add an "untagged" feature to VLAN interfaces. (either set the vlan-id to zero, or have a checkbox "untagged")I dont think you see what i mean. if you want to bridge bridges - you need to make psudo interface - like a vlan to do this. Lets say you have vlan100 on ether1 and want this out on ether2 untagged, ether2_vlan300, ether4 untagged and ether4_vlan400 . You see the problem configuring this? if you put a interface to a bridge - you also bridge any vlan tagged to this interface. if you bridge all this together - vlan300,400 and 100 will "go out" on all ports in the bridge. If you only want traffic from a separate vlan - you can only bridge this vlan. - not the interface itself, then all vlan is bridged. Problem comming when you want to bridge a vlan to have untagged traffic to the same interface that have another vlan.
LOL!I think in next few years you will ask forwarding between VRFs